Anti LGBT Mindset: Why are YOU against gay rights? READ MOD WARNING IN OP BEFORE POST

Yes homosexuals are denied, the usual well they can marry anyone they like as long as it is someone of the opposite sex is no different to saying blacks can marry whoever they like as long as it is not a white person. No different to me saying you can eat whatever you like as long as it is not meat .. this is known as a Hobson's choice, where you have a take it or leave option, which in reality is no choice at all.

Once the state became involved in marriage it cannot discriminate against one group while allowing another group to marry, unless the state can prove compelling reasons to do so . .there are no compelling reasons to stop SSM, as has been adequately displayed in numerous court rooms across the US.

Tell me exactly what effect SSM has on you or your marriage (assuming you are married that is)?

 

What!!?? You are really demonstrating your ignorance of how things works. Section three was found to be unconstitutional. Invalid in the words of Justice Kennedy. You really cant be serious. Stop embarrassing yourself with your pathetic lack of understanding of constitutional law.

 

a man has the right to marry a women, a women doesn't have that same right

.

 

There are other reasons that the courts deemed compelling to place those restrictions in place, personally I can see no reason to restrict marriage in the cases of close relatives or polygamy as long as the people involved are consenting adults, as far as minors are concerned then the laws in sexual consent apply.

You do realize that there are states in the USA that have lower restrictions on age regarding marriage with parental & Judicial consent don't you, such as Alaska, California, Delaware, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Missouri & New Hampshire, in fact there a states with no age restriction on marriage at all with parental & Judicial consent. - https://globaljusticeinitiative.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/united-states-age-of-consent-table11.pdf

 

Are you seriously going to try to equate a racial discrimination to a non-starter issue like two boys getting married. Don't try that with any well informed racial minority present.

- - - Updated - - -

You probably do not know what section three is about and what the majority and minority opinions were on this case. Come on, impress me for a change.

 

do not confuse the civil rights battle of slaves with the right of white women to marry black men (inter-racial marriage)

the comparison is the right to marry, which is exactly the same thing, we are not talking about all the other rights that Americans of the past denied blacks, just the right to marry white people because they were black people - same tired old arguments were also used to try and prevent interracial marriage as same gender marriage, that is a fact

.

 

Just for once why don't you actually try to read what I have written instead of trying to implement what you want it to say. The basic concept of what you are advocating is no different, hence the term Hobson's choice - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hobson's_choice - A Hobson's choice is a free choice in which only one option is offered. As a person may refuse to take that option, the choice is therefore between taking the option or not; "take it or leave it". - that is the comparison being made nothing to do with racial discrimination.

so now "Tell me exactly what effect SSM has on you or your marriage (assuming you are married that is)?"

 

I know exactly what it is about and have read both the majority and dissenting opinions . I really fell no need to impress you and I am decidedly unimpressed with you. The remaining section of DOMA has absolutely nothing to do with, and is not an obstacle to the advancement of legal gay rights which you are clearly freaking out about and do not understand. You're take on the supreme court action on section 3 speaks volumes! Unbelievable!!!

 

Sorry, but it is not a fact. A black man marrying a white woman or white man marrying a black woman is still a marriage according to God, who instituted marriage for having children and the protection of the children.

 

One may choose to murder someone or not, jump off a bridge or not. What's your point?

What difference does it make if two fellows want to live together and stick their penises up each others anuses or not. Go for it if that turns you on.

- - - Updated - - -

Okay, so you don't know. No problem-o

 

Except that it was not god that defined marriage at least until organized religion came onto the scene that is. You are taking a book, the bible, written about 2,000 years ago that has little historical evidence to support the majority of it, written by people who had little to no knowledge of anything outside of the small area they occupied as the defining meaning of everything. now you have every right to do so . .however, that does not mean you are correct and everyone else is wrong.

In your version of the bible is a slave allowed to marry a non-slave, if so please point out where this happened.

Furthermore the country you live in, and the one I live in, is not governed by religious law, religion does not over rule your constitution .. if you want to live by religious law you are free to do so as long as it does not violate constitutional law.

No one is forcing you to marry someone of the same sex, or your church to conduct SSM.

 

Hobson's choice is the point, a choice that is really not a choice at all .. both of your examples above are personal choices they are not being forced upon the person by others.

Is it a valid choice if someone tells you to murder someone else and if you don't they will murder you?
Is it a valid choice if someone tells you to jump off a bridge and if you don't they will push you off?

The personal choice of a homosexual may be to marry their partner, you are basically saying sorry the only choice you have is to marry someone of the opposite sex or not to marry at all ie you are forcing them to make a choice that is not a choice at all.

What difference does it make if a man and woman want to live together and him to stick his penis up her anus or not . .would you still want to deny them marriage?

Your attempt to assert in my direction is noted and ignored.

 

Regardless of your uninformed opinion, marriage was instituted by God at Creation, 6,000 +/- years ago.

 

People make lifestyle choices all the time and must live by the consequences or rewards of those choices.

 

I don't really care about what you think that I don't know. You made it clear what you don't know or understand by saying that section 3 of DOMA was not repealed and therefor somehow matters. It was overturned by the high court , tossed out, declared invalid. It's the same thing! By denying that , you have destroyed all of your credibility, if you ever had any. You are just a bad joke without a punch line

 

I didn't divide anything. I pointed out homosexuals have as much to do with marriage benefits as heterosexuals.

- - - Updated - - -

Which judges in the 35 states which ruled against you were homosexual? I know of only 1.

 

Nope. That is not how marriage is defined in the US.

 

Try to not lie when you lie. Copy and paste where I stated that Section 3 was not overturned (you said repealed which did not happen. This is another sign you are talking out of your pleasure port again.)

 

Your God has no place in the secular law. You can go and throw a fit about that as much as you want it doesn't change a darn thing.

 

How ironic - Except that it was not god that defined marriage at least until organized religion came onto the scene that is. You are taking a book, the bible, written about 2,000 years ago that has little historical evidence to support the majority of it, written by people who had little to no knowledge of anything outside of the small area they occupied as the defining meaning of everything. now you have every right to do so . .however, that does not mean you are correct and everyone else is wrong.

In your version of the bible is a slave allowed to marry a non-slave, if so please point out where this happened.

Furthermore the country you live in, and the one I live in, is not governed by religious law, religion does not over rule your constitution .. if you want to live by religious law you are free to do so as long as it does not violate constitutional law.

No one is forcing you to marry someone of the same sex, or your church to conduct SSM.

 

Except you have no evidence to support that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice, while there is certainly growing evidence that homosexuals are born that way.

 

This is what you said and it wreaks of stupidity:


Have you ever heard of DOMA? It is still the law of the U.S. Just because it is unconstitutionally not enforced does not mean it was repealed.


Still the law?? Seriously?? Section three is INVALID Period! Gay couples who are legally married get Federal benefits of marriage . Section 2 which allows states to not recognize out of state marriages stands, but that soon will be a moot point when all states have same sex marriage. (37 to date)


Please try to explain how a law that has been found unconstitutional is still the law and why it still needs to be repealed (by congress) to not be the law.

 

No problem, then don't complain about not being able to marry your goat, same sex lover, or your Camaro

- - - Updated - - -

Everyone has a choice, unless they are mentally ill. Are you claiming all people who have sex with someone of the same sex is mentally ill?

- - - Updated - - -

One section was ruled (incorrectly) unconstitutional, the remainder is still the law.

 

You were referring to section3 when you said it was still law, so don't lie

I would ask you what your legal theory is as to why the ruling is incorrect but I cant stand any more bull and really don't care.

Section 2 will wither and die as more and more states have marriage equality. What exactly is your point with all of this? Never mind , I don't care about that either

Your problem is that you think that everyone is as uninformed and uneducated as you. All you want to do is manipulate and distort reality and play asinine games.. You have wasted enough of my time. You will now be forever ignored. Read my signature line

 

What you allude to is simply a take it or leave it choice, which in reality is no choice at all. No different to the examples given already, the basis of blacks being allowed to marry only blacks & you eating any food you want to except meat have exactly the same basis as the you can marry whom ever you want as long as it is someone of the opposite sex. Hobson's choice is not free or independent, it is subject to the will or control of others.

BTW Nice strawman.. If you cannot comprehend what Hobson's choice is then the debate is pointless, even though I have explained it to you in fairly simple terms and as such I must assume you have no interest in reality, only in your preconceptions.